Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4: a quick summary

Please note that the camera pictured in this article is a pre-production model that is not 100% cosmetically final (for example, it is missing the 'GH4' stencil on the front plate).

From a hardware point of view, the GH4 looks a lot like the GH3 - and they're similar enough in footprint that the forthcoming model can still use the same external battery grip as the GH3. Some of the fine detail has been changed, with the inclusion of a 1024x768 (2360k dot) OLED viewfinder panel and a shutter that's capable of operating at 1/8000th of a second and rated to last for around 200,000 exposures (twice as long as the GH3's).

Under the familiar skin, a lot else is going on. It's probably fair to say that the bulk of the camera's improvements will be most apparent to video shooters, but there are also some extra features added for the stills photographers that Panasonic says are equally important to them in the GH4. Based on our briefing and an afternoon spent with a pre-production GH4, we've summarized the changes we've seen from both a movie and a stills-shooting perspective.

Video features

The headline feature is that the GH4 can shoot 4K video, capturing either Quad HD (3840 x 2160) at up to 29.97p or 'Cinema 4K' (4096 x 2160) at up to 24p. But 1080 fans aren't left out, either - the GH4 can capture Full HD footage at extremely high bitrates - with the choice of 200, 100 or 50Mbps at a variety of frame rates and in the choice of MOV or MP4 wrapper. That 200Mbps figure is based on using All-I compression (where each frame is treated separately during compression), while the lower option uses the more common IPB system (where the differences between frames are used to describe some frames).

In both Full HD and 4K video, the GH4 can be switched between capture frequencies (rather than previous models, which were pre-set, per-region). The GH4 provides three options: NTSC (offering frame rates of 23.98, 29.97 and 59.94), PAL (25 and 50) and Cinema (24) and requires that the camera be rebooted to switch between settings. It means that a single unit can be used to create content for a wide variety of applications and broadcast markets.

Movie shooting options (MOV or MP4 wrapper)

Frequency mode

Resolution

Frame - rate

Bitrates (Compression)

Audio

59.94Hz

4K (3840 x 2160)

29.97p

100Mbps (IPB)

Linear PCM/AAC*

23.98p

100Mbps (IPB)

Linear PCM

Full HD (1920 x 1080)

59.94p

200Mbps (All-I) 100Mbps (IPB) 50Mbps (IPB)

Linear PCM

29.97p

200Mbps (All-I) 100Mbps (IPB) 50Mbps (IPB)

Linear PCM

23.98p

200Mbps (All-I) 100Mbps (IPB) 50Mbps (IPB)

Linear PCM

50.00Hz

4K (3840 x 2160)

25p

100Mbps (IPB)

Linear PCM

Full HD (1920 x 1080)

50p

200Mbps (All-I) 100Mbps (IPB) 50Mbps (IPB)

Linear PCM

25p

200Mbps (All-I) 100Mbps (IPB) 50Mbps (IPB)

Linear PCM

24.00Hz

Cinema 4K (4096 x 2160)

24p

100Mbps (IPB)

Linear PCM

4K (3840 x 2160)

24p

100Mbps (IPB)

Linear PCM

Full HD (1920 x 1080)

24p

200Mbps (All-I) 100Mbps (IPB) 50Mbps (IPB)

Linear PCM

*MP4 only. The MP4 option also includes several lower bitrate options, in addtion to 720p and 480p resolutions. AVCHD Progressive and AVCHD are also offered, limited by the maximum frame- and bit-rates of the two standards

In addition, the GH4 builds on the GH3's spec for videographers. Not only does it gain zebra and focus peaking, to guide exposure and focus when capturing footage, it also gains much called-for options such as a flatter, 'Cinema-like' gamma setting, Master Pedestal (black-level) adjustment and the ability to specify the scale used for luminance (16-255, 16-235 or 0-255). In addition to this, faster readout from the sensor should mean less rolling shutter.

The GH4's HDMI 1.4a connector allows it to output 4K or 1080 streams. The bit-rate and amount of color information (expressed using the '4:X:X' terminology of chroma subsampling) varies, depending on how the camera is used. By default, the HDMI outputs 8-bit 4:2:2, either for monitoring or for sending to an external recorder, leaving you with the option of using the 8-bit 4:2:0 files from the camera as more convenient proxies during the editing process. Alternatively, if you take the SD card out of the camera, you can use the GH4 as a camera head - which gives you access to a 10-bit 4:2:2 stream.

The camera is designed to use SDHC and SDXC cards with a UHS I bus (rather than the newer, UHS II format used in the Fujifilm X-T1), and Panasonic only promises the camera's full capability when used with cards conforming to the U3 speed class, which guarantees 30MB/s (240Mbps) sustained write speeds.

The optional DMW-YAGH 'Interface Unit' provides a more extensive selection of video industry connectors for using the GH4 as part of a high-end video rig.

An optional 'Interface Unit' (called DMW-YAGH, when sold through consumer channels), provides XLR inputs for audio and an SDI input for externally-generated timecode, along with four HD-SDI connectors for 4:2:2 10-bit output. It also provides a 12V DC power socket.

Stills additions

The base stills specification of the GH4 is very similar to that of the GH3, as it's still based around a 16MP Four Thirds sensor (although it should be noted that Panasonic touts it as being new and promises an extra 1/3EV of dynamic range at base ISO). The more powerful processor has encouraged Panasonic to raise the highest standard ISO setting to 25,600, while the new shutter mechanism sees the flash sync speed jump to 1/250th, up from 1/160th. A combination of those two additions helps double the camera's continuous shooting rate, to 12fps for up to 50 Raw+JPEG images, or 7fps with focus tracking.

Stills shooters will get some benefit from the camera's video upgrades - particularly in that they gain focus peaking, for fast manual focusing.

With the exception of the locking mode dial, the handling of the GH4 is little-changed from that of the GH3.

Probably the biggest change is a feature called DFD (Depth-From-Defocus) autofocus, where the camera uses image blur to judge subject distance. During live view (before a half-press of the shutter button), the camera will occasionally make a tiny adjustment to focus, to check whether subjects in the frame are in front of or behind the current focus point. In addition to this information, the camera judges how far out-of-focus objects in the scene are, based on how blurred they are, assessed using a profile detailing the blur behavior of the lens at its current aperture. Although this combination of data itself doesn't give the GH4 enough information to achieve precise focus, it does give it a clear idea of where it should start using conventional contrast detection AF process to achieve fine focus.

For now the camera will only have profiles for the company's 22 Micro Four Thirds lenses - meaning any DFD speed benefits will only apply to them. However, the company seemed to suggest the blur characteristics of other lenses could be included as built-in profiles in future Micro Four Thirds lenses from other makers.

Panasonic has said it won't be announcing pricing of the GH4 until near its (also unspecified) availability date. Despite the pro-level videography features, the company continues to describe it as a hybrid, consumer-accessible model, so while we wouldn't be surprised to see a price increase over the GH3, we don't expect it to cost vastly more than its predecessor.

Just saying, would you do the remake of "Lawrence of Arbia" on a cell phone? My fear is some will say "yes". Sometimes the digital age brings down the level of quality, i.e., music play recordings. Most people lisen to MP3 players, CD sound better, they are less compressed. Analog records may have their own sonic problems, they are not compressed. The new word is not HIFI, it is OKFI. No more Panavision 6x6cm.

Nice Camera.. but still a comparable size compared to DSLR rig. Well this is just only the first quarter of the year, expect new Camera will be release soon and this model will be the least to consider. CANIKON new model will rock the show as always.. Happy shooting guys..

Comparable to a smaller DSLR, sure, but you gotta take into account the lenses too. A 10x superzoom for the GH (14-140mm) is still only about as large as a kit zoom for the DSLR, equivalent lenses are usually smaller, etc. It can very well mean the difference between carrying one extra lens vs a bundle.

I think a lot of people are holding their breath until Canon puts the dual pixel sensor on a mirrorless body tho... Whether they'll commit to developing more lenses will be the real story.

According to eoshd.com, the GH4 will cost $1,999 and the Interface Unit will cost the same.As it happens I ordered a GH3 today (the whole kit), and I 'm having mixed feelings now. For what I do, I don't need 4K (right now) and I certainly don't have the funds for a 4K capable editing station and the expensive memory cards and storage etc.What do you think, should I send back the GH3?

I don't give a damn about 4k either yet. However the gh4 has peaking, zebras, a better view finder and a higher bit rate, if these are not attractive to you then keep the gh3. If you do keep the gh3, its still capable of producing a wonderful image.

GH4 is (will be ) future proof camera. Even if you dont need 4k now, you may later. Still, with GH4 you get 1080p. 60fps. 200mbps, zebra, focus peak, 10bit 4:2:2 , Cine-like flat image ...I was going to order the GH3 last Christmas and then I heard rumors about Gh4. I am so glad that I didn`t buy the Gh3 . For me, GH4 is a top-notch camera. I am hoping to use the GH4 for professional work.

Keep the GH3. Build your lens kit. In a couple of years, 4K will start to become more interesting.

It will be at least five years before 4K starts to gain real traction in the mainstream. Remember that cable TV is dying!

Internet video is the new rage, and consumption on small screens (smart phones, tablets, and laptops) is growing rapidly. 4K requires WAY too much bandwidth for current network channels to support it in any major way. Give it time...

Some will say that 4K is needed to produce original content. Maybe in Hollywood, but that is another world for most video producers.

DSLR is just a transition technology from film to digital. Mirrorless (or better CSC) is the only future, even Canon and Nikon have to admit that sooner or later. In 2013 mirrorless already took the crown in picture quality and equaled in sensor size (A7r) and 100% replaced the OVF (A7, E-M1). In 2014 video and AF are the last things that mirrorless will fully catch up and overtake the DSLR (actually I think AF is already better today because accuracy is more important than the last 1\100 of second a DSLR might be quicker). In 2015 CSC will surpass DSLR in market share, in another 3 years the DSLR as it exists today will probably be reduced to one pro FF body and one crop body per brand for some people who still prefer an OVF. The actual only other reason to do that is to serve people bodies for all the the lenses they still have. But most will adapt then to a CSC (without the advantage of having a smaller system).Finally in 2050 Nikon is going to release the DF mkII. It's basically the same thing but it has a video button to record 1080/30p.

Given that DSLRs still outsell mirrorless ILCs roughly 4:1, I don't think mirrorless will surpass DSLRs in market share already in 2015. Remember that mirrorless cameras recently have shown less growth than DSLRs, and that they have yet to conquer the European and American markets.Maybe it will happen that soon in Japan, but if we're talking global market shares, 2015 is far too optimistic (or pessimistic, depending on how you look at it.)

Why people get all excited about the flippy mirror thing - I will never understand. It isn't a big deal. I think you are really arguing for your brand vs. Canon or Nikon - it is a thinly veiled argument. Canon and Nikon will gladly dump the mirrors and switch to mirrorless as soon as they see that the advantages of dumping the mirror outweigh keeping it. They are not married to the mirror. They have been making "mirrorless" compact cameras for over 10 years. You may like a brand that is not Canon or Nikon - that is fine. But arguing for/against a mirror is not an argument for/against Canon or Nikon.

That's my point. I use DSLR, mirrorless, and P&S, depending on the situation. The way I use them, mirrorless cannot replace DSLR, or vice versa. They all have their uses, pros and cons. And I want to make the choices on what and where to use them, not manufacturers or some vocal users.

Yes you're right. Just like medium format cameras has its own place, everything has their places and does not necessarily kill off each other. I'm not sure why so many people are over-analyzing and over-comparing these different cameras to select this "the only-one solution to everything". It's just their characteristics.

This is kind of out of topic, but I'm in love with Sony A7R btw. The details coming from A7R equipped with Alpha mount Zeiss lenses are really close to medium format details and it really shocked and awed me. I think the detail is much better than the D800E.

I wonder..if they can detect blurriness. Can they also introduce a lower DOF with that same detection? If you can detect, why not use it so that side of the equation (""oit is difficult to get lower DOF with m43s) is gone too?SO make it an option: "low DOF shooting". If you wnt it and you like the efect, bokeh etc: keep it. If not, you can not use it or may be change it back later in post (when the origina info is stored in the file)...

Last week, I presented a paper at IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging on things you can do knowing the out-of-focus point spread function ("blur" image) of a lens, which I've measured for over 125 lenses. Faster AF is the tip of the iceberg; single-shot stereo capture, after-capture refocus, etc. are all possible.

If there'd been a release, we'd have published it. As mentioned in the article, DFD autofocus will only work with Panasonic lenses. Olympus lenses will still work, using conventional CDAF (which is very quick), they just won't be quite as fast nor, in theory, as good at tracking.

It doesnt really make any sense that DFD will only work for Pana lenses, unless its a software lock-out. How can it work on old Pana lenses if there is some "new hardware requirement". Wasnt the whole point of the partnership to make bodies and lenses full compatible.

Panasonic and Olympus still compete with one another, even though they share the mount. There are basic functions that work across all lenses, and then there are proprietary niceties, that are not critical, but can sway the customer to one system or the other. Most people use both Olympus and Panasonic lenses, so it's not really a big issue.

I thought they did not exclude other lenses in the future. As it is I think it is a pretty stupid move. Most certainly if they dare to do this in the G7 and other forthcoming cams. It is a sort of incopatibility within a system. Not a good idea, at least not at face value. But...we have to know the reasons why tthis is in order to come to some conclusion about Panny, Oly and the other m43 lensmakers.

The camera uses the blur of OOF areas to determine distance. This requires a lens-specific profile describing the appearance of the blur at every aperture value. The camera has profiles for all Panasonic m43 lenses, but apparently they didn't profile any Olympus lenses. Such profiles could be added with future firmware updates, though.That Panasonic and Olympus share a lens mount, doesn't mean that every feature in their cameras must support the other company's lenses.

In my understanding, Panasonic can be responsible for Panasonic lens DFD profile. Other makers of M43 lenses will have to write a lens firmware updates in order to include necessary DFD data into profile. I think this is an obvious and fair.

You are essentially asking whether technology will continue to evolve and putting an 8k moniker on this for the next steps. Like anything and EVERYTHING in the consumer tech space! there is NO end to upgrades and evolution. If there were there be nothing new to sell.

Having said that, 4k is NOT the next big thing for BROADCAST programming. There simply isn't the pipeline infrastructure available for moving that much data to households. 4k will follow suit with BluRay ...great for movies but that's it.

Streamed UDTV may be marketed as 4k or 8k, but streamed at only 20mbps, it won't look any better than 1280x720p. YouTube 1080 video hardly reaches 4mbps, which is half what you used to get with an HQ standard definition DVD. The bandwidth necessary for streaming real UDTV would cost more than most people could pay, and be for naught on a small screen.

The only content i need to be in HD (never mind 4k) at the moment are good movies at home and some family vids. Most of the time, i happy with 360p youtube.. esp. for stuff like news, dumb cat videos, etc. I will switch to 4k when its just as easy to access as 360p today.

8K or 16K will be good (for home users) when they finally invent some OLED paint, where we can just paint a wall, hook a controller strip down the side and watch a movie, or multiple movies, across the entire surface.

It would be pretty cool to put up a live 8K stream of your front yard and then have the wall appear to not be there anymore.

We may be limited by storage devices and their cost. A 16gb card will be full in a matter of seconds!NLE software and in particular the associated hardware is currently only available to the large pro studios and labs due to the very costs both in terms of asset purchase and operating staff.

I guess we can equate it to some extent like buying MS Flight Sim and having to buy an Airbus Industries Flight Simulator to play the game. Similar fun value, .. huge cost disparity.

In time of course, tech-up .. price-down will make it viable as per usual.

I'd rather have 1080P in 10-bit 4:2:2 internal recording with a professional editing grade CODEC than consumer 4k.Also the sensor resolution has to be lower than 16MP, like the Canon's C300 et al. 10MP seems a good balance, more so for a 4/3" sensor.Would be nice too an internal ND filter, just like the real Pro video cameras have and even vanilla P&S !

Everything you demand exists in the $29k PMW-F55. Just make sure you can also afford the requisite peripherals and high end workstation. Internal 10-bit 4:2:2 video processors would overheat and drain batteries fast. It would overwhelm a typical PC and be impossible to share without gross compression that defeats the purpose.

The GH4 will have focus peaking, but the EVF viewfinder won't be sharp enough to manually tune 4k focus, unless one uses a fairly deep focus. The AF should work OK for stills. Hope it does for video too.

raztec, are you aware that Canon has just celebrated a manufacturing milestone of over 70million EOS cameras produced since 1987? Yeah, those overpriced crappy camera bodies that nobody wants, yet they keep flying off dealers shelves. Where on earth do they go to? Oh, and lets not forget that Canon is on track to produce their 100millionth EF interchangeable lens this year as well. Hey, but who's counting?

The fact that they have 70 million cameras before hitting 100 million lenses says so much about who buys canon cameras. I mean those are millions upon millions of interchangeable lenses but it also means the majority don't use em. The majority buy an SLR as a point and shoot. The majority probably can't give you a half way decent definition for ISO, Aperture, Shutter, and Exposure Compensation.

Just saying, Canon's basic business model is to make high end cameras with interchangeable lenses that aren't that profitable and will sell in stable but limited quantities and then water them down for wannabes who will pay way too much for cheap imitations they don't need, understand, or most importantly use.

At least with the GH4 it's targeted to make money from people who actually have interest in what it does. That does make it feel differently marketed than Canon because the business model is so different!

I dislike Canon because they intentionally remove the function from their "non-pro" cameras to sell MUCH more expensive "Professional" cameras. The lack of the innovation is not from the technical limitations, obviously.

Isn't choice in the marketplace a wonderful thing? We can hate this brand or that one, pretty much like we do with religions, politics, people and everything else, and still have plenty of favorites to choose from. I had a great time today, but now it's time for my cameras and I to meet and greet some wannabe models, so, see ya. :)

I would say that Canon's Dual Pixel AF is one of the greatest innovations in recent years. It makes on-sensor PDAF possible, without using dedicated pixels that can't be used for image capture. So the "lack of innovation" mantra, that is often repeated, isn't entirely fair, IMHO.

Well, I have worked in TV for more than thirty years and still do and among the pro video cameraman I know, it is either dedicated video cameras or the most expensive Canon or Nikon. Not one serious shooter is shooting Micro Four Thirds.

"The fact that they have 70 million cameras before hitting 100 million lenses says so much about who buys canon cameras." I can't believe you could say something as dumb as that. Canon has more lenses than EF lenses, and most lenses on the entry level cameras are not EF. So try again.

This is my dream camera. I never thought I see the day that a manufacturer would make such a thing, but by god they did it. Everything on my most wildest and unrealistic wishlist my imagination could come up with, this camera has and more.

Welp, Panasonic, you pulled me back in. I should have never left you for Sony. "Please take me back baby, I can change!" lol.

Wake up. You don't have a 4k display, a computer with sufficient CPU/CPU, a 100 TB HDD, or the >$25k to buy them all. Without those accessories, you will learn the meaning of "be careful what you wish for."

@jkoch2 you should wake up. In office we have plenty of comptuers and even my 2 year old MacBook Pro runs the 4K footage from the GH4 just fine. Even without a 4K monitor I can still see a huge difference than 1080P. Also there's the concept of printing stills from video...

Jorden Mosely: "4K footage in the past on my system, so that's not an issue."

Confirm your system specs, the exact 4k file parameters, and the render speed. If you did work with 4k at all, chances it was with proxy files and the rendering took eons. Confirm your 4k display specs too.

@jkoch2 you don't know what you're talking about, 4K isn't hard to work with. I have an old AMD Phenom 955 PC with 8 gigs of ram. I downloaded 2 sample 4k mp4 videos, loaded it into Sony Vegas, set some crop/zoom animations, transitioned them both together and re-rendered it at 1080p.

The 20 sec clip I made took 30 secs to render. Any modern kit would happily render that in real-time.

jkoch2 said "Wake up. You don't have a 4k display..." Well, guess what. Most digital cameras today shoot still pics with more pixels than your monitor can display at once. Why then are *you* shooting that many pixels? The answer is the same as it the answer you are looking for with 4K video. (Many actual video pros keep trying to tell the newbs that 4K is useful for zooming in post, compatibility with better output like theatrical, etc.)

@jkoch None of what you said is needed. You do not need a special computer to edit 4K, you need proxy media. You do not need a 4K monitor, you need a 4K future. You do not need 100TB of storage for 100Mbs 4K footage (this bitrate is pretty low compared to most 4K cameras). This can all be done on a MacBookPro, Final Cut Pro X, and a 4TB Thunderbolt drive, and use proxy media (about 20Mbs).

Source: Me, professional director/cinematographer; having shot with Alexa, F55, C500, Scarlets/Epics, and more.

There is confusion here about recording at 200 Mbps without the additional DMW-YAGH interface. Since the camera allows external recording over HDMI at 10-bit 4:2:2 ProRes up to 220 megabits/sec, you do not need the interface. For example, several film makers I know are planning on using their existing Hyperdeck Shuttle 2 or Ninja 2.

Yes, I have calmed down myself since yesterday. While I was hoping for some bmpcc style raw or pro res internal recording, today I have faced reality that no matter why Panasonic did it (ill take off my tin foil hat now), ill just pony up and get a ninja 2.

The beauty of m43 is if I want something discrete and powerful later, I can get a bmpcc down the road and use the same lenses. Although I don't look forward to the quirks that camera has.

This is the real evolution. We are moving towards more video and 4K will be the standard. A burst rate for stills of 40fps in raw + JPEG at full resolution (if the rolling shutter is improved) will be a godsend.

Although there is a lot of hype on this forum for this camera, the fact is that m43 is a non-player in the cine market. Others such as Sony and Canon have long released dedicated S35 and FF cine cameras (C100, FS700, F55, F65, etc). This market is dominated by S35 cameras. Whereas, the only m43 cine camera, the Pana AG100 never took off. The m43 mount BMP is even more of a compromise, and after the hype, its fading away.

So the reason you dont see these specs on Sony/Canons is that they dont need to... they are already catering to this market, but, you wont see the F55, F5, etc mentioned on here.

Of course you are wrong again. There his huge interest in the Independent film world which is why sites like EOSHD are coving this so heavily. Films shot on the GH2 won top awards at Sundance last year, so to call Panasonic a non-player is laughable. Next you will claim there is no interest in the Black Magic cameras too.

Those cameras do not cost tens of thousands. And, with the GH4 you need to buy the additional XLR pack to gain the basic functionality that is found in those other cameras (SDI, XLR, etc).

The reason that still/video cameras took off is because they were the only form factor available.. over time, companies started shifting to low, cost large sensor cameras. Panasonic even tried this with the AG100, but, the m43 format is incompatible with the ubiquitous S35 ecosystem. The fact is that m43 is a non-player.

I think that Jogger has LOD (Language Obfuscation Disorder) which is easily identified by those who excessively use the term "non-player". The term essentially means nothing but has the effect of amplifying the ego of the afflicted which feeds their superiority complex.

IEBA1: Upstream Color is a great example. I'm not a video expert so perhaps I am missing something in the logic of yabbokie's claim. But I find the optics in Leica lenses well...excellent (even if manufactured not by Leica but in compliance with standards). My understanding is that at least a portion of Upstream Color was shot with a Voigtländer lens. I doubt anyone perceived any deficiencies in terms of optics in this film; beautiful.

Huh? You have mentioned Sony F55. It is $29K body only. A starter kit with 2 zoom lenses is $123K on ebay right now.For comparison, GH4+Interface Unit+12-35/2.8+35-100/2.8 will be about $5K, even less with something like 14-42PZ+45-175PZ. For multi-point shooting you need several of them. Size and weight are not comparable, you can strap a camera like this on a car or even onto an actor for first-person view, try to do this with F55 and Arri 18-80.

If I am film school or journalism student, independent film maker without lot of budget, or just some one wish to make a short film with reasonable good quality movie (instead of an iPhone), I think GH4 fit this shoe perfectly.

C500 F55 Red Arri ??? Sure I would like to shot with these someday, but before my skill / budget / commercial need allow and require me to rent and use these camera, GH series or DSLR (or Black Magic cam - but the workflow is a bit different with DSLR) is most people "good enough cine" camera.

i really dont think films are winning awards at film festivals because of the type of cameras used.i still think films win awards because they have great story content.i think if i had a great story i could film it on a vhs camera or mini dv camera and still win an award.so that argument is rubbish.learn how to write great films and you wont have to buy the latest cam tech unless your a test film youtuber.then you will need a 4k 5 grand camera to film your 2 minute test film.

I doubt that it can record 200 Mbps without the additional DMW-YAGH interface unit with the 4 raid card slots - $$$. So it isn't really a feature included with the camera. It is like saying that my DSLR has a flash guide number of 54 when I buy and attach an additional external flash not included with the camera. Perhaps if they had actually added a second card slot to the camera?

It appears to me that the Panasonic GH4 is a video camera, first and foremost, that just happens to do stills too. The fact that the camera comes dressed in traditional stills camera ergonomics may help to sell it to a larger customer base than would be possible if it were wearing video only clothes. It's kind of a "poor man's" Canon 1D-C aimed at schizophrenic video/stills photography hobbyist. I'm sure we will see a lot more of these hybrids, at this price point and below, from the other gadget makers in the very near future, as they continually hunt for a way to turn a profit from their camera businesses. Fortunately, Panasonic has the necessary background in video to do a good job of it. :)

I'd say that cameras like this appeal to the younger folks who do blogging and new media outlets. They need stills and moving pictures. The Internet is replacing TV and big budget Hollywood is in trouble.

Panasonic push the GH line specifically at low budget film makers and have done for years -- since the GH1. This is a logical progression that does not deserve such a sneering and dismissive characterization as a schizophrenic "hobbyist" camera that only exists to pump out more cameras. They have pushed all four of their lines to different market segments, and this one happens to need better and better video with each generation, which Panasonic have steadfastly delivered. But the stills are also at the top of the genre, as they always are. As for other companies jumping on this specific band wagon ... really?

wudyi, I agree with you that hybrid video/stills cameras, such as the GH4, are popular, and especially so because of internet blogging and news gathering. These types of cameras are proving to be very convenient alternatives to carrying separate dedicated video and stills imaging devices. So much so, that even some low budget film makers are embracing them as well. (I certainly don't want to exclude those folks from the conversation again). :)

I don't really agree with this statement. Panasonic cameras are very high-quality stills cameras, even if you never use the video features. The video features are additive. They don't require subtracting stills features, or replacing them. In most still shots, to see a significant difference from any other camera that any other manufacturer produces, in any format, requires pixel-peeping. I shoot a Panny G6 now, a very capable video camera that is hopelessly outclassed by the GH4, but I rarely use the video. I just shoot stills with it. It is a high-quality, responsive, fun stills camera to use. Read the reviews.

I wonder what the G7 will be like, and whether Panasonic will introduce a new enthusiast stills camera between the G7 and the GHK4. Will a new GF camera play that role? My guess is that Panasonic still has a card or two up their sleeves.

Given that Panasonic have started adding high-quality manual video to their prosumer cameras beginning with the G6/GX7, I think these models have now replaced the market position of the old GH1/2 line.

Hopefully the GH4 frees Panasonic to focus on photographers for the more classical G and GX models. Video is already very good on the G6, GM1 and GX7 - at least as good as the GH3's 1080p was. Casual video shooters would miss that if they didn't have it, but do they need 10bit and 4K? If they do, I think that's worth paying a bit extra for don't you?

nope,,g6 is not in league with gh2 or gh3,,g6 is still a gimicky camera but the gh2 is a bonafide video camera with the high bitrate hacks.g6 shoots 60p,but i never use 60p unless i need slight slow mo look.gh2 is still king of the gh series to me.200+bit rate hacks but the external recorders have problems with it.i dont know why or anyone has found out why the atomos or hyperdecks dont woork with the gh2???anyone?

In simple words, we had until now photo cameras that could make video, and from now on, we have video cameras that can make photos. What the heck is that good for? And, then, 2000$ for a body that contains things I never use. When do camera manufacturers start doing again cameras for photographers? Now, stop talking about Nikon DF low resolution cripple and it's fantasy pricing?The world is definitely upside down.

Also seems a bit strange to complain about paying for features you never use. The GH4 is obviously intended for people who are interested in advanced videography; if you're not one of those people, just don't buy the camera. Problem solved.

The world is right side up for people who do not take such things as excellence as a personal affront. Panasonic make five lines of cameras now (keep forgetting the little GM1, despite owning one :-) ) and you can safely ignore the top of the range if you don't want what it can do. The hand wringing is entirely optional.

There was a good article somewhere that pointed out how adding video has *improved* the experience for a still photographer. The challenges of video have brought about very useful still photography improvements like live view, faster autofocus, focus peaking, improved data pipeline/faster readout times, and the list goes on.

If you can't take a good still picture with the still photography feature set of the GH4, the problem is not with the camera...it is behind the camera.

Don't forget you can use almost any lens from any system with adapter.

Also the Ex. Tele mode in video, which adds a further 2.6x crop with almost no degradation in image quality (small increase in noise.) So that 100-300mm lens becomes a 260mm - 780mm at the press of an Fn button.

i agree,the speed booosters for the micro 4/3 sensor is a god darn god send,i have one on each of my gh2s with nikon lenses.my 50mm 1.2 is close to 50mm where it belongs.i really love the S boosters.if it only had electyronics to it to control lenses,,i would die for it.

@Shamael ... stop whining about this. There are four other excellent lines from Panasonic that you can easily afford. Heck, you can buy a GX1 for a couple hundred bucks today. And it makes great stills and excellent video too. (And it can be hacked for some really nice video if you want to distract yourself from all this bad karma that the manufacturers are throwing at you.)

If you guys don't mind an ignorant question from a stills shooter asking out of curiosity... When we say "external recorder" for 10 bit, what sort of size/weight/PSU/price are we talking there? Is it the size of a margarine tub, or a shoebox? And how many zeroes on the price?

It's about time. The problem with importing from the US is you don't get any 25/50fps modes, I happened to be in Hong Kong last month and picked up a PAL GX7 with unlimited video recording. I *think* Australian Panasonic cameras are also PAL with unlimited video.

Of course my old GH1 is running the hacked firmware which removes the 30min limit and also lets you switch between PAL and NTSC shooting formats :)

If one just converts that to american dollars, then one get $2252. BUT one cannot do that it is more expensive here. Using the retail prices of the E-M1 which is 12980,- NOK vs $1,399 (at B&H) that would put the GH4 around $1500

i liked having almost the same resolution in every aspect ratio. it's not that i really needed wide shots, 3:2 and 16:9 are closest to my needs. the 4:3 aspect ratio is like hoping 2G cell phones will make a huge comeback in the near future.

cards with a UHS I bus (rather than the newer, UHS II format used in the Fujifilm X-T1) - ok, so Fuji is better. Nice plug dpreview. I wonder if this makes any difference, but I can hardly think about any.

It's easy to click "I have it" by accident in the product description page, and then when you try to say you don't have it this is what sometimes happens... (Adding: this problem is there for all products, it just becomes very noticeable in the case of newly announced products.)

While my main current interests in any camera is its video capabilities, GH4 still-imaging capabilities are impressive for any mirrorless camera, even including other recent Panasonic cameras, such as GH3, G6, GX7 and GM1, that alone makes GH4 a fantastic choice for photography. Besides the similar to GH3 camera body shape, I see significant changes in almost every other hardware and software parts: sensor, digital signal "imaging/video" processor, internal memory, etc. I'll wait for the first real-world GH4 tests, but this camera is already in my shopping list.

Indeed, 4K is at least 8MP. But if you thought JPG was limiting, try working with frame captures. If you don't mind i'll stay with RAW for stills. ;) And if i'm not mistaken the Nikon 1 V2 shoots 60fps at full-res (14MP), or 15fps with AF. And yes people do make (very short) 4K video shots with that. At about 7MB per shot, that's 420MB = 3360Mbps ALL-I, take that GH4K. ;)

Well, judging from earlier experiments with HD video and frame grabs, the video stills are highly compressed with lower quality.The shutter speeds used for smooth video are to long for freezing objects and you get a lot of motion blur. And finally, "catching the moment" as in getting an a good shot of sports etc. is not so much about recording, but choosing the right angle, framing etc. Take for instance the very few number of interesting shots that have resulted from Casios line of super high speed cameras.

You could probably do it by recording the 10-bit 4:2:2 HDMI output as RAW tho, there was an article a while back where a photographer talked about their experience using a RAW 4k video stream on a shoot.

What fun it will be to edit stills from video. Just when I was starting to enjoy sorting through hundreds of shots I wouldn't have taken if I had a limited amount of film; now I'll be able to pick the best shot from thousands or tens of thousands.

The viewfinder has only 1/10th of the pixels you need to judge focus in 4K. Peaking is not enough there.And i doubt that SDHC cards are capable of recording 4K without huge compression. They're just not fast enough to handle the big datastream.

Seems that the rumours were greatly exaggerated and the $2000 rumoured price seems like a far off dream. It should be able to film 4K 60p to be relevant a year from now, 30p it is only the beginning (Sony camcorders already have 4K 60p).

I presume Panasonic will further sensor development on their still lines (possibly working with Fuji) as I think they are certainly lacking in progression in that department, where Olympus has made innovations.

Actually, I didn't complain about the GH3 (though you still have the same questionable JPEGs with Panasonic if you really press me to find a problem), more like the still image specs weren't given to same boost as the video specs.

IBIS is also a missed opportunity, it works so well on Olympus (stills and video) and the GH4 being the flagship camera for Panasonic, one would have hoped for something like that. GX7 gave us hope, but hopes dashed with the GH4.

There's the nagging suspicion of some sort of agreement between Olympus and Panasonic, insuring Pana has the top video specs and Oly keeps its IBIS edge. :)

I may be wrong here, but it is my understanding that it simply wouldn't be possible to engineer the sensor readout speeds required for the sort of video horsepower we have here, while mounting the sensor on an IBIS gimbal. The 2 simply don't work together with the currently available technology. Chances are, while the GH series remains so focused on video, IBIS will miss out, though the GX7 does at least demonstrate a willingness by Panasonic to incorporate this feature where the feature balance is weighted more towards stills.

It's not a grip. It isn't designed to be used handheld. It doesn't need to be tiny, because the connections it offers you are for connecting much bulkier things to the camera than the add-on itself, like professional video monitors, recorders, v-lock batteries, XLR cables and audio solutions, etc. Consumers won't need it, the GH4 already does 4K video internally without it and very high quality 10bit 4:2:2 over the built in mini-HDMI port!

That DMW-YAGH Interface Unit is pretty nifty – balanced audio-in! – but it’ll probably cost as much as the camera.

The GH4 is a serious-looking bit of kit, but I can’t help feel it’s still being held back a little to protect Panasonic’s dedicated video cameras. I can’t think of a good reason for limiting the in-camera recording capabilities to 8-bit depth with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling. Can you? Extremely fast memory cards are today readily available.

I had a read (www.eoshd.com/content/11934/panasonic-gh4-preview), but it told me nothing new. He did mention 8-bit 4:2:0 in-camera recording as the second “con” in his list at the end, but he didn’t even guess why that limitation is there.

It's just not possible to record a bigger datastream without a external hard drive. SDHC cards are not fast enough. 4K may look like the BIG thing with this camera, but i think it's HD capabilities are the good news.

Although all the GH4 internal codecs are 8bit 4:2:0, according to Mr Uematsu-san the internal signal processing is all 4:2:2 (10-bit).

When 10bit is selected the encoder is bypassed altogether and you can record extremely nice 1080p in ProRes 10bit 4:2:2 on your external recorder from an actual 10bit 4:2:2 source signal. The camera cannot record to the SD card whilst set to 10bit over HDMI.

BMPCC can do prores and raw internally on current gen sd cards. Panny want to make us use fancy new expensive cards and then limit it to 8bit to protect their broadcast cameras. Panasonic, don't you want my money? It would be a sure sale if they had allowed 10bit to card, now I'm not so sure I want to invest into a gimped panasonic system.

It's still a great camera, but now I'm waiting to see what the competition can do, instead of organizing my pre order.

If they are trying to cripple it, why then go to the effort of adding 10bit 4:2:2 over HDMI?

The truth is I don't know why the internal recording is 8bit 4:2:0. I can only speculate. It's probably to do with compression and processing power. I think 10bit 4:2:2 would increase file sizes dramatically, rule out use of 90% of the SD cards on the market due to the higher data rates, decrease battery life due to being more processor intensive, introduce compatibility issues with consumer set-top boxes and TVs, and make the camera more expensive to produce.

It's not like the option isn't there. The Atomos Ninja is a great solution for 10bit 4:2:2 on the GH4 for those that need it.

If you're not doing intensive colour correction you don't need it. Let's wait and see what the 8bit 4:2:0 looks like first. The specs aren't always the full picture.

EOSHD: I didn’t mean to be rude. Your write-up is good, but I had read some other articles by the time yours was pointed out to me – and since it didn’t answer my question I was a bit gruff at having been told to go and read it.

I’m not fond of the word ‘cripple’, but obviously a decision has to made on which features to include. With everything else they’ve managed to cram into the GH4, I think they could have added better in-camera recording options. Memory cards are fast enough – not all of them, of course, but 4K shooters could presumably figure out which card they would need to buy.

I’m no expert, but the processing/power/thermal limitations seem unlikely to me. Of course there are serious thermal limitations in such a camera, but doing different chroma subsampling and using a different compression rate shouldn’t hugely change the power consumption with dedicated silicon. The camera has to internally deal with the raw data coming off the sensor regardless.

Correct, you do have a point, would have liked to have seen 10bit internal and if the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera can do 10bit 4:2:2 1080p to SD cards internally for $999 then the GH4 doesn't have much of an excuse. Maybe it's tied in with the JPEG engine, which is 8bit. We don't have 10bit JPEG either, not even on a Canon 1D X and nobody is suggesting the stills are crippled on a 1D X to protect something higher up because there isn't anything higher up! Raw on the other hand doesn't require much processing at all so it's easy to have 14bit raw stills, not so easy to take that and put it into a 10bit JPEG or 10bit video file.

Maybe they just want us to buy external recorders for this and indeed it is a business decision, but to be honest at this price level they are in their rights to hold back on 10bit unless someone else comes up with a better spec. Canon charge $12,000 for their 8bit in the 1D C. What's THEIR excuse?!